Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273 
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 20th, 2007, 07:46 AM
"The poor are victims of Kyoto" what rot! The poor have always been victims of the upper crust. Kyoto may be seen to be an insturment of bankers and a torment of the poor, it wouldn't be the first time a chicken bone was served on gilded dinner ware. Koyoto is seen for the most part as benevolent intention, it's naysayers and adherants alike are a strange brew of interests. I'm suspicious, how can the system that caused imbalance and thrives on it be employed to fix anything or even trusted to define the problem.
"The poor are victims of Kyoto" what rot! The poor have always been victims of the upper crust. Kyoto may be seen to be an insturment of bankers and a torment of the poor, it wouldn't be the first time a chicken bone was served on gilded dinner ware. Koyoto is seen for the most part as benevolent intention, it's naysayers and adherants alike are a strange brew of interests. I'm suspicious, how can the system that caused imbalance and thrives on it be employed to fix anything or even trusted to define the problem.
Member
Posts: 120
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
December 20th, 2007, 10:15 AM
Head Spin .. What ya talking about Willis?
Thats probably a conservative reaction lol.
Here is a head shake. Harper stood in a salvation army depo for toy Mountatin and made an announce on CTV.
Behind the scenes he held up volunteer work for Toy mountain, and many parents that had an appointment to pick up the toys that would have been ready if harper did not come. Many
poor families who struggle to get there toys for their children were told to come back. Most
only had a trip for the one trip.
Harper did not make a donation!
Harper did not have over 50 people at the time with him, volunteer a toy mountain.
Harper needs to be visted by the three Ghosts of Christmas!
If you have time please volunteer of Toy mountain at the distribution centre, help get the toys out to the families that can not pick up their toys because they can not afford a second trip there.
Head Spin .. What ya talking about Willis?
Thats probably a conservative reaction lol.
Here is a head shake. Harper stood in a salvation army depo for toy Mountatin and made an announce on CTV.
Behind the scenes he held up volunteer work for Toy mountain, and many parents that had an appointment to pick up the toys that would have been ready if harper did not come. Many
poor families who struggle to get there toys for their children were told to come back. Most
only had a trip for the one trip.
Harper did not make a donation!
Harper did not have over 50 people at the time with him, volunteer a toy mountain.
Harper needs to be visted by the three Ghosts of Christmas!
If you have time please volunteer of Toy mountain at the distribution centre, help get the toys out to the families that can not pick up their toys because they can not afford a second trip there.
Quoting darkbeaver
"The poor are victims of Kyoto" what rot! The poor have always been victims of the upper crust. Kyoto may be seen to be an insturment of bankers and a torment of the poor, it wouldn't be the first time a chicken bone was served on gilded dinner ware. Koyoto is seen for the most part as benevolent intention, it's naysayers and adherants alike are a strange brew of interests. I'm suspicious, how can the system that caused imbalance and thrives on it be employed to fix anything or even trusted to define the problem.
Electoral Member
Posts: 689
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
December 20th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Quoting Niflmir
I posted the following in another thread:
Yes, Europe is an example of an economy with a progressive energy cost schedule, the irrelevancies you quote notwithstanding. The economy here is faring the subprime crisis much better than many others, so I have no idea what economic downturn you are talking about.
Quote:
And the rebuttal which I added some emphasis to for your edification:
Taxes beat red tape
Carbon tax propelled Norway to global leadership
Mark Jaccard, Nic Rivers and david Keith
Financial Post
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
In a recent article, Aldyen Donnelly argued that evidence from the United Kingdom and Norway shows that greenhouse-gas taxes (a.k.a. carbon taxes) fail to reduce emissions, hurt the poor and cost manufacturing jobs. Throughout the article, she blames academics ("Mark Jaccard, among others") for promoting carbon taxes when we should instead be explaining the advantages of regulations "like fuel-efficiency standards for automakers and mandates that require electric utilities to buy a certain portion of their total sales from zero-generation sources."
Ms. Donnelly (in Burning the Poor, Oct. 31) might wish it were only us academics suggesting that pricing is an effective way to reduce emissions. But the chief executives of Canada's 25 largest corporations and the chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, who have recently come out in favour of pricing emissions, are not academics. In fact, a recent poll by the BBC World Service showed that 57% of Canadians support a carbon tax, rising to 81% if the tax is "offset by other tax breaks so that total taxes remain the same."
Ms. Donnelly suggests that carbon taxes and other regulatory policies cannot coexist. But even we ivory-tower academics know the world is not so simple. Indeed, we have frequently emphasized the potential effectiveness of the very regulatory policies Ms. Donnelly is describing. But the norm among countries that are serious about the risks of climate change is to apply a combination of policies to ensure we can no longer freely emit greenhouse gases.
Ms. Donnelly claims that Norway's carbon tax has had a perverse effect in leading to rising emissions relative to Canada and poor economic performance. She invites the reader to look at official national statistics. So we did. According to the national statistics offices of Norway and Canada, during the period 1990-2005, per-capita greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.5% in Canada but fell 0.4% in Norway. At the same time, Norwegian per-capita economic output grew 47%, compared with Canada's 30%, while Norway's oil and gas production per capita grew at much faster rates than Canada's.
Norway's economy has performed wonderfully, while its carbon taxes have helped propel it into global leadership in emission-reduction technologies. After the imposition of the carbon tax in 1991, the Norwegian company Statoil took the decision to
implement the Sleipner project, in which carbon dioxide is injected into a deep saline aquifer 1,000 metres under the North Sea floor. According to Statoil's Web site, the "decision to inject was taken in 1991 following the introduction of a CO2 tax."
In the same vein, Norway may soon be the first country to generate near-zero-emission electricity from fossil fuels, with its coastal project to generate electricity in concert with carbon capture and storage. The pressures of the carbon tax, alongside other policies, are helping Norwegian businesses to become world leaders in the emerging field of clean energy.
Ms. Donnelly also claims that carbon taxes hurt the poor, obliging government to provide compensation, as in the United Kingdom. But one of the strengths of the carbon-tax approach is precisely that, unlike regulations, it provides revenue for ensuring low-income groups are not worse off. Technology regulations, on the other hand, force people -- rich and poor -- to acquire low-emission technologies that are more expensive. They do not compensate the poor or anyone else for this extra cost.
If we Canadians don't care that much about economic performance, we can avoid carbon taxes and regulate our way to greenhouse-gas reduction. And, as applied academics, we are willing to help design those regulations in ways that minimize (but cannot eliminate) their negative effect on economic output and on low-income groups. But can Canadians really afford to be so cavalier about economic growth?
Finally, Ms. Donnelly argues that where they have been applied, particularly in the United Kingdom, carbon taxes are now profoundly unpopular. But the same recent BBC poll that showed Canadian support for carbon taxes also showed 54% support in the United Kingdom for an increase in carbon taxes from current levels -- support that rises to 77% if the extra tax is offset by equivalent tax reductions. After years of this policy, support is very strong, which is surprising when one considers that this is public support for being taxed! Indeed, the British Opposition Conservative Party promises to increase the carbon tax if elected.
We agree with Ms. Donnelly that carbon taxes are not the be-all and end-all of climate policy. We just wish she would take a more even-handed, "academic" approach to the evidence.
-Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers are with the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. David Keith directs the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary.
Link
Carbon tax propelled Norway to global leadership
Mark Jaccard, Nic Rivers and david Keith
Financial Post
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
In a recent article, Aldyen Donnelly argued that evidence from the United Kingdom and Norway shows that greenhouse-gas taxes (a.k.a. carbon taxes) fail to reduce emissions, hurt the poor and cost manufacturing jobs. Throughout the article, she blames academics ("Mark Jaccard, among others") for promoting carbon taxes when we should instead be explaining the advantages of regulations "like fuel-efficiency standards for automakers and mandates that require electric utilities to buy a certain portion of their total sales from zero-generation sources."
Ms. Donnelly (in Burning the Poor, Oct. 31) might wish it were only us academics suggesting that pricing is an effective way to reduce emissions. But the chief executives of Canada's 25 largest corporations and the chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, who have recently come out in favour of pricing emissions, are not academics. In fact, a recent poll by the BBC World Service showed that 57% of Canadians support a carbon tax, rising to 81% if the tax is "offset by other tax breaks so that total taxes remain the same."
Ms. Donnelly suggests that carbon taxes and other regulatory policies cannot coexist. But even we ivory-tower academics know the world is not so simple. Indeed, we have frequently emphasized the potential effectiveness of the very regulatory policies Ms. Donnelly is describing. But the norm among countries that are serious about the risks of climate change is to apply a combination of policies to ensure we can no longer freely emit greenhouse gases.
Ms. Donnelly claims that Norway's carbon tax has had a perverse effect in leading to rising emissions relative to Canada and poor economic performance. She invites the reader to look at official national statistics. So we did. According to the national statistics offices of Norway and Canada, during the period 1990-2005, per-capita greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.5% in Canada but fell 0.4% in Norway. At the same time, Norwegian per-capita economic output grew 47%, compared with Canada's 30%, while Norway's oil and gas production per capita grew at much faster rates than Canada's.
Norway's economy has performed wonderfully, while its carbon taxes have helped propel it into global leadership in emission-reduction technologies. After the imposition of the carbon tax in 1991, the Norwegian company Statoil took the decision to
implement the Sleipner project, in which carbon dioxide is injected into a deep saline aquifer 1,000 metres under the North Sea floor. According to Statoil's Web site, the "decision to inject was taken in 1991 following the introduction of a CO2 tax."
In the same vein, Norway may soon be the first country to generate near-zero-emission electricity from fossil fuels, with its coastal project to generate electricity in concert with carbon capture and storage. The pressures of the carbon tax, alongside other policies, are helping Norwegian businesses to become world leaders in the emerging field of clean energy.
Ms. Donnelly also claims that carbon taxes hurt the poor, obliging government to provide compensation, as in the United Kingdom. But one of the strengths of the carbon-tax approach is precisely that, unlike regulations, it provides revenue for ensuring low-income groups are not worse off. Technology regulations, on the other hand, force people -- rich and poor -- to acquire low-emission technologies that are more expensive. They do not compensate the poor or anyone else for this extra cost.
If we Canadians don't care that much about economic performance, we can avoid carbon taxes and regulate our way to greenhouse-gas reduction. And, as applied academics, we are willing to help design those regulations in ways that minimize (but cannot eliminate) their negative effect on economic output and on low-income groups. But can Canadians really afford to be so cavalier about economic growth?
Finally, Ms. Donnelly argues that where they have been applied, particularly in the United Kingdom, carbon taxes are now profoundly unpopular. But the same recent BBC poll that showed Canadian support for carbon taxes also showed 54% support in the United Kingdom for an increase in carbon taxes from current levels -- support that rises to 77% if the extra tax is offset by equivalent tax reductions. After years of this policy, support is very strong, which is surprising when one considers that this is public support for being taxed! Indeed, the British Opposition Conservative Party promises to increase the carbon tax if elected.
We agree with Ms. Donnelly that carbon taxes are not the be-all and end-all of climate policy. We just wish she would take a more even-handed, "academic" approach to the evidence.
-Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers are with the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. David Keith directs the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary.
Link
Quote:
And where is Norway on its Kyoto commitment after all that effort? 25% OVER 1990 levels, 30% OVER its target. What a pity, all that effort for nothing.
Wherever tried, taxes failed environmentally
Aldyen Donnelly
Financial Post
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
In my article, I described the sorry history of carbon taxes around the world, with real-world examples of tax strategies that have failed to accomplish their environmental objectives, but harmed economies, especially the poor.
In theory, carbon taxes should be effective. But this theory does not translate into real life. If we continue to pretend otherwise, Canada will make the same costly mistakes that other nations are now working hard to dig out from under.
Mark Jaccard et al. praise Norway's carbon taxes, then say: Over "1990-2005, per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions increased 7.5% in Canada, but fell 0.4% in Norway." They should know that Norway's carbon taxes applied only to energy consumption and production, and that in these tax-targeted areas, Norway's per-capita emissions increased 18.4%, compared with 9.0% for Canada. Norway reduced emissions in not-carbon-taxed, non-energy areas.
Also generating the loss of 18% of manufacturing jobs since 1997, Norway's reductions derive from the shutdown of one magnesium plant in 2002, cutbacks in the forest-harvest and forest-products industries, and the upgrade of a state-controlled aluminum smelter. (Alcan completed a similar upgrade in Quebec around the same time, without a tax.)
Jaccard et al. say: "Norwegian per capita economic output grew 47% compared to Canada's 30%.," implying carbon taxes deserve some credit. In truth, Norway's economy grew by aggressively increasing production of fossil fuels. In 1990, oil and gas extraction activities accounted for 11% of Norway's gross domestic product. By 2005, oil and gas extraction accounted for 27% of Norway's GDP and government revenues (a large part from oil and gas rents) accounted for another 45%, while the economic contribution of all other value-adding sectors has declined. Norway's economy is less diversified and more dependent on global demand for fossil fuels today than it was in 1990.
Jaccard et al. extol the Sleipner CO2 injection project in Norway as "world leading." In truth, the EnCana CO2 injection project typically injects roughly 1.5 to 2 times more CO2 in Weyburn, Sask., without a carbon tax.
Jaccard et al. say I suggest "that carbon taxes and other regulatory policies cannot co-exist." I don't suggest that. In fact, the U.K. 2007 budget lists no less than 25 discrete greenhouse-gas control measures. The important question is: In the context of this long list of measures, what is the role and effect of the carbon tax?
Jaccard et al. imply that carbon taxes are popular in the United Kingdom. In truth, it was government's decision to freeze carbon taxes that is popular. What is the recent U.K. history? In 1993, as an energy conservation measure, the Thatcher government introduced the "duty fuel escalator," an automatic annual increase in duties on all fuels for all consumers (very similar to what Jaccard currently recommends). Then in 1999, a U.K. Treasury study that showed that fuel and car duties and value-added taxes had grown increasingly regressive, eating up over 14% of the disposable income of the U.K.'s poorest 10% of families and only 6% of the wealthiest families' incomes. In the same year, the lot of the poor had become so serious that the U.K. government launched the now essential "Fuel Poverty" program. In the 2000 U.K. budget, after massive fuel-price protests, then-chancellor Gordon Brown cancelled the duty fuel escalator, froze fuel duties, and lowered or eliminated the value-added tax on fuels and energy appliances.
After freezing fuel duties, the U.K. government introduced the not-carbon weighted Climate Change Levy (CCL), which applies only to energy consumed by manufacturers. In September, 2007, the U.K. Taxpayers Alliance's The Case Against Further Green Taxes found that "England's poorest region pays over 35% more [in climate-change levies] as a proportion of regional gross value added, than England's richest region." Since 1990, at least in part due to these experiments in carbon/energy taxation, U.K. manufacturing jobs have fallen 34%. The 2006 U.K. budget includes the chancellor's commitment to shift away from some of the more regressive consumption taxes. The 2007 U.K. budget reports, as a positive finding, that real U.K. fuel taxes are finally down to a new "low by historic standards."
Carbon taxes do not replace payroll taxes, as advertised. The U.K. government still relies on payroll taxes for 21% of government revenues, three times the Canadian government's rate of dependence. On Sept. 4, British newspapers reported "government raises £25.1-billion in fuel duties -- and gives back £254-million in lower vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars and other projects, like wind turbines." British taxpayers are reasonably asking: Why are payroll taxes still so high in the face of massive manufacturing job losses and what are the implications of government's increasing dependence on highly regressive "green taxes" to fund health care and the now essential "Fuel Poverty" program?
-Aldyen Donnelly is president of WDA Consulting Inc. and of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium.
Link
Aldyen Donnelly
Financial Post
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
In my article, I described the sorry history of carbon taxes around the world, with real-world examples of tax strategies that have failed to accomplish their environmental objectives, but harmed economies, especially the poor.
In theory, carbon taxes should be effective. But this theory does not translate into real life. If we continue to pretend otherwise, Canada will make the same costly mistakes that other nations are now working hard to dig out from under.
Mark Jaccard et al. praise Norway's carbon taxes, then say: Over "1990-2005, per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions increased 7.5% in Canada, but fell 0.4% in Norway." They should know that Norway's carbon taxes applied only to energy consumption and production, and that in these tax-targeted areas, Norway's per-capita emissions increased 18.4%, compared with 9.0% for Canada. Norway reduced emissions in not-carbon-taxed, non-energy areas.
Also generating the loss of 18% of manufacturing jobs since 1997, Norway's reductions derive from the shutdown of one magnesium plant in 2002, cutbacks in the forest-harvest and forest-products industries, and the upgrade of a state-controlled aluminum smelter. (Alcan completed a similar upgrade in Quebec around the same time, without a tax.)
Jaccard et al. say: "Norwegian per capita economic output grew 47% compared to Canada's 30%.," implying carbon taxes deserve some credit. In truth, Norway's economy grew by aggressively increasing production of fossil fuels. In 1990, oil and gas extraction activities accounted for 11% of Norway's gross domestic product. By 2005, oil and gas extraction accounted for 27% of Norway's GDP and government revenues (a large part from oil and gas rents) accounted for another 45%, while the economic contribution of all other value-adding sectors has declined. Norway's economy is less diversified and more dependent on global demand for fossil fuels today than it was in 1990.
Jaccard et al. extol the Sleipner CO2 injection project in Norway as "world leading." In truth, the EnCana CO2 injection project typically injects roughly 1.5 to 2 times more CO2 in Weyburn, Sask., without a carbon tax.
Jaccard et al. say I suggest "that carbon taxes and other regulatory policies cannot co-exist." I don't suggest that. In fact, the U.K. 2007 budget lists no less than 25 discrete greenhouse-gas control measures. The important question is: In the context of this long list of measures, what is the role and effect of the carbon tax?
Jaccard et al. imply that carbon taxes are popular in the United Kingdom. In truth, it was government's decision to freeze carbon taxes that is popular. What is the recent U.K. history? In 1993, as an energy conservation measure, the Thatcher government introduced the "duty fuel escalator," an automatic annual increase in duties on all fuels for all consumers (very similar to what Jaccard currently recommends). Then in 1999, a U.K. Treasury study that showed that fuel and car duties and value-added taxes had grown increasingly regressive, eating up over 14% of the disposable income of the U.K.'s poorest 10% of families and only 6% of the wealthiest families' incomes. In the same year, the lot of the poor had become so serious that the U.K. government launched the now essential "Fuel Poverty" program. In the 2000 U.K. budget, after massive fuel-price protests, then-chancellor Gordon Brown cancelled the duty fuel escalator, froze fuel duties, and lowered or eliminated the value-added tax on fuels and energy appliances.
After freezing fuel duties, the U.K. government introduced the not-carbon weighted Climate Change Levy (CCL), which applies only to energy consumed by manufacturers. In September, 2007, the U.K. Taxpayers Alliance's The Case Against Further Green Taxes found that "England's poorest region pays over 35% more [in climate-change levies] as a proportion of regional gross value added, than England's richest region." Since 1990, at least in part due to these experiments in carbon/energy taxation, U.K. manufacturing jobs have fallen 34%. The 2006 U.K. budget includes the chancellor's commitment to shift away from some of the more regressive consumption taxes. The 2007 U.K. budget reports, as a positive finding, that real U.K. fuel taxes are finally down to a new "low by historic standards."
Carbon taxes do not replace payroll taxes, as advertised. The U.K. government still relies on payroll taxes for 21% of government revenues, three times the Canadian government's rate of dependence. On Sept. 4, British newspapers reported "government raises £25.1-billion in fuel duties -- and gives back £254-million in lower vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars and other projects, like wind turbines." British taxpayers are reasonably asking: Why are payroll taxes still so high in the face of massive manufacturing job losses and what are the implications of government's increasing dependence on highly regressive "green taxes" to fund health care and the now essential "Fuel Poverty" program?
-Aldyen Donnelly is president of WDA Consulting Inc. and of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium.
Link
Quoting Niflmir
Respect is something that must be earned. Thus far you have failed to do that. As for your history, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Try to stay on subject with actual examples as opposed to baseless assertions, I find your attitude exceptionally ignorant and disrespectful. Especially disrespectful given my history as a recovered drug addict.
Quoting Niflmir
You can devise formulas and plans all you want, but it will always hurt the poor. You could forcibly convert the economy to a marxist system with the purported goal of helping the poor but you would only hurt them, since without income earners, wage earners, entrepreneurs, corporations, there is no wealth generated that the poor benefit from. All those grandiose schemes to "help" the poor inevitably fail when confronted with reality.
Given any demand distribution I can always create a new price schedule which will cost more money in total but save the poor money. Give me the poverty line and watch me set y = mx + b, so that for x small y is is smaller than current yet the integrated price is high. It is trivial when the previous cost schedule is constant, say k0. Your inability to see this reality in no way changes that fact. So here is some math for you.
Total energy cost = int(k0*f(x),x=0..x_max)=k0*f_average
where f(x) is the demand distribution ( f = number of people demanding x units), and f_average is the average demand
New total energy cost = int ((m*x+b)*f(x),x=0..x_max) = m*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average
for some x' in [0,x_max] by the mean value theorem.
Now we want m*x_pov+b < k0, so m*(x_pov+1)+b = k0 achieves this and m=(k0-b)/(x_pov+1)
So, new cost = (k0-b)/(x_pov+1)*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average > (k0-b)*x_max*f(x') +b*f_average = k0*x_max*f(x') + b*(f_average - f(x')*x_max)
We still have complete freedom to choose the price schedule and we are merely showing the existence of a single policy, so let b=0.
Then new cost > k0*x_max*f(x')
Since demand for electricity (in units of kilowatt hours) is always greater than the number of people demanding it (a person needs more than 1 kilowatt hour) , x_max > f_average in particular and multiplying by f(x') > 1 implies x_max*f(x') > f_average.
Thus we have shown that with m chosen as above and b equal to zero, the new price schedule will always satisfy
Total cost > k0*f_average = old cost.
The assumption being that demand for electricity is not heterogeneous to the cost of that electricity, which is false for electricity used to power luxuries but true for electricity used for necessities, which is all we care about in a welfare analysis in any case. My statement is nothing more than the fact that given a linear functional representing total cost of necessary electricity for price schedule, C[p], which maps L2 functions to real numbers and the domain of C_pov being less than C, and a previous cost schedule (L2 function) p, I can find a new function, p_new so that p_new < p for x < x_pov and C[p_new]>C[p]. The proof is trivial in the mathematical sense for x<x_pov, and a constant price outside of the domain of [0,x_pov] can be used with the mean value theorem to prove the second inequality.
This is nothing new. Anybody who knows what a "progressive" cost schedule actually is will understand the basic idea without needing to see such math. Give me the freedom to institute green energy policy and set the price of energy and I will save the poor money and simultaneously increase the cost. The fact that someone is ignorant of this reality doesn't make it less real and the fact that someone may be opposed to this reality does not make it impossible. Higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those below the poverty line.
Total energy cost = int(k0*f(x),x=0..x_max)=k0*f_average
where f(x) is the demand distribution ( f = number of people demanding x units), and f_average is the average demand
New total energy cost = int ((m*x+b)*f(x),x=0..x_max) = m*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average
for some x' in [0,x_max] by the mean value theorem.
Now we want m*x_pov+b < k0, so m*(x_pov+1)+b = k0 achieves this and m=(k0-b)/(x_pov+1)
So, new cost = (k0-b)/(x_pov+1)*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average > (k0-b)*x_max*f(x') +b*f_average = k0*x_max*f(x') + b*(f_average - f(x')*x_max)
We still have complete freedom to choose the price schedule and we are merely showing the existence of a single policy, so let b=0.
Then new cost > k0*x_max*f(x')
Since demand for electricity (in units of kilowatt hours) is always greater than the number of people demanding it (a person needs more than 1 kilowatt hour) , x_max > f_average in particular and multiplying by f(x') > 1 implies x_max*f(x') > f_average.
Thus we have shown that with m chosen as above and b equal to zero, the new price schedule will always satisfy
Total cost > k0*f_average = old cost.
The assumption being that demand for electricity is not heterogeneous to the cost of that electricity, which is false for electricity used to power luxuries but true for electricity used for necessities, which is all we care about in a welfare analysis in any case. My statement is nothing more than the fact that given a linear functional representing total cost of necessary electricity for price schedule, C[p], which maps L2 functions to real numbers and the domain of C_pov being less than C, and a previous cost schedule (L2 function) p, I can find a new function, p_new so that p_new < p for x < x_pov and C[p_new]>C[p]. The proof is trivial in the mathematical sense for x<x_pov, and a constant price outside of the domain of [0,x_pov] can be used with the mean value theorem to prove the second inequality.
This is nothing new. Anybody who knows what a "progressive" cost schedule actually is will understand the basic idea without needing to see such math. Give me the freedom to institute green energy policy and set the price of energy and I will save the poor money and simultaneously increase the cost. The fact that someone is ignorant of this reality doesn't make it less real and the fact that someone may be opposed to this reality does not make it impossible. Higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those below the poverty line.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
December 21st, 2007, 05:31 AM
The argument you present is essentially: Because a few countries have tried and failed, all countries must fail. But empirical examples can only invalidate, never prove, regardless of how many white swans you have shown me, you haven't proven that a black swan doesn't exist.
I have explicitly shown that this is false, I have shown you one black swan, albeit an ugly one. I could in fact invent an infinity of policies which would succeed, just by monkeying around with the cost schedule. You assert without evidence that any such system, or at least a "Marxist" system, will destroy the economy and thereby hurt the poor. The fact that an energy pricing system exists in Germany, Italy and France which has a higher cost of electricity than Canada or the US and yet gives a lower price to the poor is empirical proof that a progressive pricing schedule, need not be disastrous to the economy or "Marxist" given the private nature of their energy providers, and one should keep in mind the robustness of their unified economy in the face of the current crisis. Our tax system in Canada is progressive and this has in no way lead to widespread economic collapse.
Quoting Extrafire
Actually, civil society is founded on the principle that everyone deserves respect until they show otherwise, that is the basis for common courtesy. That you disagree with something and immediately become insulting and happen to make a comment which is particularly insensitive due to my personal history (which you really couldn't know about) should convince you of the importance of basic manners, which I accuse you of lacking. Don't replace the golden rule with "Treat others like garbage until you think you like them."
I posted the following in another thread:
And the rebuttal which I added some emphasis to for your edification:
And where is Norway on its Kyoto commitment after all that effort? 25% OVER 1990 levels, 30% OVER its target. What a pity, all that effort for nothing.
Respect is something that must be earned. Thus far you have failed to do that. As for your history, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can devise formulas and plans all you want, but it will always hurt the poor. You could forcibly convert the economy to a marxist system with the purported goal of helping the poor but you would only hurt them, since without income earners, wage earners, entrepreneurs, corporations, there is no wealth generated that the poor benefit from. All those grandiose schemes to "help" the poor inevitably fail when confronted with reality.
And the rebuttal which I added some emphasis to for your edification:
And where is Norway on its Kyoto commitment after all that effort? 25% OVER 1990 levels, 30% OVER its target. What a pity, all that effort for nothing.
Respect is something that must be earned. Thus far you have failed to do that. As for your history, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can devise formulas and plans all you want, but it will always hurt the poor. You could forcibly convert the economy to a marxist system with the purported goal of helping the poor but you would only hurt them, since without income earners, wage earners, entrepreneurs, corporations, there is no wealth generated that the poor benefit from. All those grandiose schemes to "help" the poor inevitably fail when confronted with reality.
The argument you present is essentially: Because a few countries have tried and failed, all countries must fail. But empirical examples can only invalidate, never prove, regardless of how many white swans you have shown me, you haven't proven that a black swan doesn't exist.
I have explicitly shown that this is false, I have shown you one black swan, albeit an ugly one. I could in fact invent an infinity of policies which would succeed, just by monkeying around with the cost schedule. You assert without evidence that any such system, or at least a "Marxist" system, will destroy the economy and thereby hurt the poor. The fact that an energy pricing system exists in Germany, Italy and France which has a higher cost of electricity than Canada or the US and yet gives a lower price to the poor is empirical proof that a progressive pricing schedule, need not be disastrous to the economy or "Marxist" given the private nature of their energy providers, and one should keep in mind the robustness of their unified economy in the face of the current crisis. Our tax system in Canada is progressive and this has in no way lead to widespread economic collapse.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
December 21st, 2007, 07:05 AM
Quoting Niflmir
Of course, you could have the same effect of a progressive cost schedule if you did not have a progressive cost schedule and increased taxes on the wealthy/middle class and increase welfare transfers to the poor.
This is nothing new. Anybody who knows what a "progressive" cost schedule actually is will understand the basic idea without needing to see such math. Give me the freedom to institute green energy policy and set the price of energy and I will save the poor money and simultaneously increase the cost. The fact that someone is ignorant of this reality doesn't make it less real and the fact that someone may be opposed to this reality does not make it impossible.
Quote:
It almost certainly will though, for energy costs are an input into the economy. Everything else being equal, in an economy that is reliant upon imports for energy - as most European economies are - rising energy costs leads to rising inflation, and inflation is an insidious tax, particularly on the poor. If the monetary and fiscal authorities attempt to deal with the inflation, then the policies will lead to higher interest rates and/or less government spending, neither of which are beneficial to the poor. So, yes, higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those who are poor. It is likely, however, that they will.
Higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those below the poverty line.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
December 21st, 2007, 07:36 AM
One can control inflation in this way: control the price of energy sold to consumers and tax the producers. The producers cannot put the tax off onto the consumer and so they subsume the burden. Because of the lowered profits, layoffs are made and a corresponding decrease in energy production occurs. There are now more unemployed people, which we didn't want, but the money supply can be made constant so long as the government destroys some of the taxes, so we will not cause inflation. The tax was of course a temporary measure proportional to emission levels, so the money can be invested into the research necessary to curb emissions. This can be done in such a way whereby the companies which were taxed are allowed to keep their money so long as it is invested in research and layoffs are not made, thus we will also increase the goods produced which should accomodate the energy loss more easily than the decirculation of money. The pegged price of energy will, unfortunately, lead to deflation unless an environmentally-efficient method of production is found.
Anyways, not sure how much I will be on in weeks to come. Happy holidays, just in case.
Quoting Toro
But will the inflation caused by the carbon tax regime be greater than the inflation caused by the rising energy costs in the old regime? It may be true that emissions have risen in some countries which have implemented carbon taxes, nobody said it was a panacea, but have the emission levels risen above the level they would have risen to without the taxes, are there marginal gains? If the consumption of energy has been slowed by these processes then has the rate of cost increase correspondingly decreased? If not, then there is an artificial nature to the rising prices that needs to be analysed to stem off the inflation you mention. Lack of knowledge of ideal policy is not proof of lack of existence, which is all I meant to say in any case. But of course the burden is upon me to clarify things. In what follows I will take a broad view of inflation as the increase to the money supply above a corresponding increase to the goods consumed.
Of course, you could have the same effect of a progressive cost schedule if you did not have a progressive cost schedule and increased taxes on the wealthy/middle class and increase welfare transfers to the poor.
It almost certainly will though, for energy costs are an input into the economy. Everything else being equal, in an economy that is reliant upon imports for energy - as most European economies are - rising energy costs leads to rising inflation, and inflation is an insidious tax, particularly on the poor. If the monetary and fiscal authorities attempt to deal with the inflation, then the policies will lead to higher interest rates and/or less government spending, neither of which are beneficial to the poor. So, yes, higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those who are poor. It is likely, however, that they will.
It almost certainly will though, for energy costs are an input into the economy. Everything else being equal, in an economy that is reliant upon imports for energy - as most European economies are - rising energy costs leads to rising inflation, and inflation is an insidious tax, particularly on the poor. If the monetary and fiscal authorities attempt to deal with the inflation, then the policies will lead to higher interest rates and/or less government spending, neither of which are beneficial to the poor. So, yes, higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those who are poor. It is likely, however, that they will.
One can control inflation in this way: control the price of energy sold to consumers and tax the producers. The producers cannot put the tax off onto the consumer and so they subsume the burden. Because of the lowered profits, layoffs are made and a corresponding decrease in energy production occurs. There are now more unemployed people, which we didn't want, but the money supply can be made constant so long as the government destroys some of the taxes, so we will not cause inflation. The tax was of course a temporary measure proportional to emission levels, so the money can be invested into the research necessary to curb emissions. This can be done in such a way whereby the companies which were taxed are allowed to keep their money so long as it is invested in research and layoffs are not made, thus we will also increase the goods produced which should accomodate the energy loss more easily than the decirculation of money. The pegged price of energy will, unfortunately, lead to deflation unless an environmentally-efficient method of production is found.
Anyways, not sure how much I will be on in weeks to come. Happy holidays, just in case.
Electoral Member
Posts: 689
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
December 21st, 2007, 11:26 PM
Quoting Niflmir
Nonsense. I am courteous to strangers. I am courteous to those whose opinions I don't know. But once you post here, I know your thought process and I respond accordingly. But respect is something I only give to those who have demonstrated that they deserve it. The elderly deserve it automatically just by being elders, and I do accord it to them. If you are elderly and I have not shown you that respect I apologize, for I do not know your age. But other than that, respect must be earned.
Actually, civil society is founded on the principle that everyone deserves respect until they show otherwise, that is the basis for common courtesy.
Quoting Niflmir
I have responded to your posts with the respect they deserve. If you found it personally insulting, I would suggest that you have a very thin skin. I will treat you the same as anyone else who posts the same ideas.
That you disagree with something and immediately become insulting and happen to make a comment which is particularly insensitive due to my personal history (which you really couldn't know about) should convince you of the importance of basic manners, which I accuse you of lacking. Don't replace the golden rule with "Treat others like garbage until you think you like them."
Quoting Niflmir
Not quite my argument. And black swans do exist, in Australia.
The argument you present is essentially: Because a few countries have tried and failed, all countries must fail. But empirical examples can only invalidate, never prove, regardless of how many white swans you have shown me, you haven't proven that a black swan doesn't exist.
Quoting Niflmir
The strength of our capitalist economies is what allows us to do these things and make special allowances for the poor (of whom I am one). The kind of hit that the economy would have to take to meet Kyoto and/or its successors would hit that economy hard, which is why the poor would suffer, since there would be less wealth to be shared with them.
I have explicitly shown that this is false, I have shown you one black swan, albeit an ugly one. I could in fact invent an infinity of policies which would succeed, just by monkeying around with the cost schedule. You assert without evidence that any such system, or at least a "Marxist" system, will destroy the economy and thereby hurt the poor. The fact that an energy pricing system exists in Germany, Italy and France which has a higher cost of electricity than Canada or the US and yet gives a lower price to the poor is empirical proof that a progressive pricing schedule, need not be disastrous to the economy or "Marxist" given the private nature of their energy providers, and one should keep in mind the robustness of their unified economy in the face of the current crisis. Our tax system in Canada is progressive and this has in no way lead to widespread economic collapse.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
December 22nd, 2007, 12:05 PM
As I said, "all things being equal."
There are benefits to less energy consumption - which is part of the point of higher energy taxes - but there are costs. Since costs are passed along to the consumer, and since the poor consume relatively more than those who are not, especially on staples of life, then the poor will probably bear the same if not more of the relative cost of rising energy costs, all else being equal.
Quoting Niflmir
Yes, it is certainly safe to assume that, unless there is a reduction in tax elsewhere on energy, inflation will be greater since demand for power tends to be inelastic, and the majority of the tax will be passed on by higher prices.
But will the inflation caused by the carbon tax regime be greater than the inflation caused by the rising energy costs in the old regime? It may be true that emissions have risen in some countries which have implemented carbon taxes, nobody said it was a panacea, but have the emission levels risen above the level they would have risen to without the taxes, are there marginal gains? If the consumption of energy has been slowed by these processes then has the rate of cost increase correspondingly decreased? If not, then there is an artificial nature to the rising prices that needs to be analysed to stem off the inflation you mention. Lack of knowledge of ideal policy is not proof of lack of existence, which is all I meant to say in any case. But of course the burden is upon me to clarify things. In what follows I will take a broad view of inflation as the increase to the money supply above a corresponding increase to the goods consumed.
As I said, "all things being equal."
There are benefits to less energy consumption - which is part of the point of higher energy taxes - but there are costs. Since costs are passed along to the consumer, and since the poor consume relatively more than those who are not, especially on staples of life, then the poor will probably bear the same if not more of the relative cost of rising energy costs, all else being equal.
Quote:
Energy and natural gas production was regulated for decades in the US, using a complex set of tariffs in an attempt to regulate the nat gas market. The regulation of prices, particularly in the gas market, lead to under investment in the industry. This is what will occur if you attempt any broad regulation of pricing in the energy market. By requiring companies to do A B C and D to effect E F G and H, you will incur unnecessary costs which will lead to deadweight loss from both the costs required to abide by the regulations, as well as from the tax itself. Currently, billions of dollars - and growing - are being poured into alternative energy sources, having little or nothing to do with government policy, simply because the price of oil is near $100. The market is usually (but not always) a more efficient allocator of capital than government. It is axiomatic in economics that you can control the price of something or you can control the supply of something, but you cannot control both. And by attempting to control the price received by the producer, you will also effect the supply of alternative energy, which will almost certainly be less than that produced from the emissions taxes and corresponding regulations you cited above, given the deadweight costs of the regulatory regime and taxes imposed.
One can control inflation in this way: control the price of energy sold to consumers and tax the producers. The producers cannot put the tax off onto the consumer and so they subsume the burden. Because of the lowered profits, layoffs are made and a corresponding decrease in energy production occurs. There are now more unemployed people, which we didn't want, but the money supply can be made constant so long as the government destroys some of the taxes, so we will not cause inflation. The tax was of course a temporary measure proportional to emission levels, so the money can be invested into the research necessary to curb emissions. This can be done in such a way whereby the companies which were taxed are allowed to keep their money so long as it is invested in research and layoffs are not made, thus we will also increase the goods produced which should accomodate the energy loss more easily than the decirculation of money. The pegged price of energy will, unfortunately, lead to deflation unless an environmentally-efficient method of production is found.
Quote:
You too.
Anyways, not sure how much I will be on in weeks to come. Happy holidays, just in case.
Council Member
Posts: 1,817
December 27th, 2007, 06:24 AM
See what you bloody AGW's have done.
The beer crisis
Trouble brewing
Dec 19th 2007 | ST LOUIS
From The Economist print edition
A shortage of hops threatens Christmas
JUST as the festive season gets going, drinkers in America are finding their favourite beer suddenly more expensive or even—horrors!—not available at all. Hit by price increases and shortages, many breweries, particularly the small “craft brewers” and the even smaller microbreweries, are being forced to raise prices, make do with modified recipes or shut off the spigots altogether.
The humble hop, the plant that gives beer its distinctive flavour, is the main problem. Many farmers in the Pacific north-west, where America's hop production is concentrated, have turned to more profitable lines—especially corn, which can be made into ethanol. The decrease in hop production, put at some 50% over the past decade, has sent prices through the roof. Brian Owens, the brewmaster of the O'Fallon Brewery near St Louis, Missouri, says that the variety he once bought for $3 a pound (0.45kg) now costs five times that. Many smaller breweries cannot find what they need at any price. Industry giants like Anheuser-Busch and Miller are better off, thanks to long-term contracts. But even Anheuser-Busch has been forced to raise prices for its six-packs.
Without their supply of hops, some smaller producers are going out of business, bringing to a halt the fastest-growing segment of the industry. Other craft brewers and brewpubs are experimenting with new recipes, hoping their customers will adapt.
The hops shortage is only part of the problem. Things are no better for barley, used to make the malt that yeast turns into alcohol. It too has been ploughed under in favour of corn. Crop failures in Australia and Europe, combined with the weak dollar, have made it harder to replace the shortage with imports. Other price increases, of fuel, glass and metal, add to the pressure. Not such a merry Christmas.
See what you bloody AGW's have done.
The beer crisis
Trouble brewing
Dec 19th 2007 | ST LOUIS
From The Economist print edition
A shortage of hops threatens Christmas
JUST as the festive season gets going, drinkers in America are finding their favourite beer suddenly more expensive or even—horrors!—not available at all. Hit by price increases and shortages, many breweries, particularly the small “craft brewers” and the even smaller microbreweries, are being forced to raise prices, make do with modified recipes or shut off the spigots altogether.
The humble hop, the plant that gives beer its distinctive flavour, is the main problem. Many farmers in the Pacific north-west, where America's hop production is concentrated, have turned to more profitable lines—especially corn, which can be made into ethanol. The decrease in hop production, put at some 50% over the past decade, has sent prices through the roof. Brian Owens, the brewmaster of the O'Fallon Brewery near St Louis, Missouri, says that the variety he once bought for $3 a pound (0.45kg) now costs five times that. Many smaller breweries cannot find what they need at any price. Industry giants like Anheuser-Busch and Miller are better off, thanks to long-term contracts. But even Anheuser-Busch has been forced to raise prices for its six-packs.
Without their supply of hops, some smaller producers are going out of business, bringing to a halt the fastest-growing segment of the industry. Other craft brewers and brewpubs are experimenting with new recipes, hoping their customers will adapt.
The hops shortage is only part of the problem. Things are no better for barley, used to make the malt that yeast turns into alcohol. It too has been ploughed under in favour of corn. Crop failures in Australia and Europe, combined with the weak dollar, have made it harder to replace the shortage with imports. Other price increases, of fuel, glass and metal, add to the pressure. Not such a merry Christmas.
Council Member
Posts: 1,817
January 15th, 2008, 08:46 AM
Should have followed the maxim: if it ain't broke don't fix it.
EU to reconsider biofuels targets
The European commission's environment minister, Stavros Dimas, admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems that would be raised by its policy of getting 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants by 2020.
He said the environmental impact and the effect on poor communities of boosting biofuel production would be greater than Brussels had originally thought.
The acknowledgement, in an interview for the BBC, follows a report published in the journal Science last week which warned that biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels.
The research, from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, found that although the fuels themselves emitted fewer greenhouse gases, they all had higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.
"Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases," the report's authors, Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, wrote.
Another scientific study published last August also warned that the target of getting 10% of petrol and diesel needs from renewable sources by 2020 was less effective in curbing carbon emissions than a programme of restoring forests and protection plant habitats.
Dimas said today that there had been "a lot of enthusiasm" for the biofuels option a year and a half ago as a means of meeting overall targets in cutting emissions from vehicles.
That enthusiasm had "gone down" because of revelations that the environmental and social problems were greater than thought.
"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were," he told the BBC.
Dimas said the commission would now have to "move carefully" on the issue of biofuels, adding: "We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."
One of the criteria in pushing biofuels was that the policy had to be "sustainable" - meaning that harnessing biofuels should not mean clearing existing forest land.
If the necessary sustainability could not be achieved, said Dimas, the EU targets would not be met.
Greenpeace's executive director, John Sauven, said: "The dangers of mass biofuel production need to be taken seriously because as things stand biofuels could be worse than useless at combating climate change.
"But UK government targets mean that soon motorists will be forced to pump these fuels into their tanks, with no way of knowing where they're coming from. We need to be sure that when we fill up we are not trashing the world's rainforests. A better, quicker solution would be to make our cars far more fuel efficient."
The earlier study, published in Science last August, warned that the European biofuels policy was a "mistake".
It compared the relative environmental benefits of growing crops on arable land to produce biofuels, or replanting the same land with trees, and found that the quantity of CO2 absorbed by forests over 30 years would be "considerably greater" than the emissions avoided by using biofuels.
The extent of the benefits of biofuels will be assessed in a review being published today by the Royal Society. The report is expected to urge EU governments to ensure that they only endorse a biofuels policy which can be proven to cut carbon emissions.
Should have followed the maxim: if it ain't broke don't fix it.
EU to reconsider biofuels targets
- <LI class=byline>Jessica Aldred and agencies <LI class=publication>guardian.co.uk,
- Monday January 14 2008
The European commission's environment minister, Stavros Dimas, admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems that would be raised by its policy of getting 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants by 2020.
He said the environmental impact and the effect on poor communities of boosting biofuel production would be greater than Brussels had originally thought.
The acknowledgement, in an interview for the BBC, follows a report published in the journal Science last week which warned that biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels.
The research, from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, found that although the fuels themselves emitted fewer greenhouse gases, they all had higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.
"Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases," the report's authors, Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, wrote.
Another scientific study published last August also warned that the target of getting 10% of petrol and diesel needs from renewable sources by 2020 was less effective in curbing carbon emissions than a programme of restoring forests and protection plant habitats.
Dimas said today that there had been "a lot of enthusiasm" for the biofuels option a year and a half ago as a means of meeting overall targets in cutting emissions from vehicles.
That enthusiasm had "gone down" because of revelations that the environmental and social problems were greater than thought.
"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were," he told the BBC.
Dimas said the commission would now have to "move carefully" on the issue of biofuels, adding: "We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."
One of the criteria in pushing biofuels was that the policy had to be "sustainable" - meaning that harnessing biofuels should not mean clearing existing forest land.
If the necessary sustainability could not be achieved, said Dimas, the EU targets would not be met.
Greenpeace's executive director, John Sauven, said: "The dangers of mass biofuel production need to be taken seriously because as things stand biofuels could be worse than useless at combating climate change.
"But UK government targets mean that soon motorists will be forced to pump these fuels into their tanks, with no way of knowing where they're coming from. We need to be sure that when we fill up we are not trashing the world's rainforests. A better, quicker solution would be to make our cars far more fuel efficient."
The earlier study, published in Science last August, warned that the European biofuels policy was a "mistake".
It compared the relative environmental benefits of growing crops on arable land to produce biofuels, or replanting the same land with trees, and found that the quantity of CO2 absorbed by forests over 30 years would be "considerably greater" than the emissions avoided by using biofuels.
The extent of the benefits of biofuels will be assessed in a review being published today by the Royal Society. The report is expected to urge EU governments to ensure that they only endorse a biofuels policy which can be proven to cut carbon emissions.
Council Member
Posts: 1,817
January 16th, 2008, 06:36 AM
US: January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON - Almost a third of the US grain crop next year may be diverted from the family dinner table to the family car as fuel, putting upward pressure on food prices, a leading expert warned on Tuesday.
Grain prices are near record levels as the United States produces more ethanol, now made mostly from corn, to blend with gasoline and stretch available motor fuel supplies.
Farmers, hoping to cash in, are expected to grow 30 percent of next year's grain crop for ethanol use as more refineries that process corn into fuel come online, according to Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and long-time critic of using food grains for fuel.
"The price of grain is now tied to the price of oil," Brown said at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.
As a result, he said, prices will go up for poultry, beef and pork as well as dairy products because corn is the number one animal feed for farmers.
"Our refrigerators are stuffed with corn," Brown said. For example, feed prices make up about 40 percent of the cost of poultry alone, he said.
The pressure on food prices from ethanol will only get worse as the new energy law passed last month requires US ethanol production to soar from about 9 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
"What we see are cars beginning to compete with people for world grain supplies," Brown said. "We could see a consumer revolt in this country."
Brown said that an SUV with a 25-gallon (95 litres) tank filling up with ethanol would use enough grain, about 560 pounds (254 kg), to feed the average person for one year.
However, the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group that lobbies for ethanol producers, says corn demand for ethanol doesn't have a big effect on retail food prices.
The group cites government data that shows labor costs account for 38 cents of every dollar spent on food, with packing, transportation, energy, advertising and profits accounting for 24 cents. Just 19 cents can be attributed to the cost of food inputs like grains and oilseeds, the group said. Still, rising ethanol demand helped cut world grain inventories last year to an all-time low of just 53 days of demand, compared with the 70 days of grain stocks many food experts say is normal. Brown said higher corn prices may bring back the backyard-type Victory Gardens last seen in World War II, with rural homeowners planting small plots of corn to cash in on growing ethanol use.
Story by Tom Doggett
US: January 16, 2008
WASHINGTON - Almost a third of the US grain crop next year may be diverted from the family dinner table to the family car as fuel, putting upward pressure on food prices, a leading expert warned on Tuesday.
Grain prices are near record levels as the United States produces more ethanol, now made mostly from corn, to blend with gasoline and stretch available motor fuel supplies.
Farmers, hoping to cash in, are expected to grow 30 percent of next year's grain crop for ethanol use as more refineries that process corn into fuel come online, according to Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and long-time critic of using food grains for fuel.
"The price of grain is now tied to the price of oil," Brown said at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.
As a result, he said, prices will go up for poultry, beef and pork as well as dairy products because corn is the number one animal feed for farmers.
"Our refrigerators are stuffed with corn," Brown said. For example, feed prices make up about 40 percent of the cost of poultry alone, he said.
The pressure on food prices from ethanol will only get worse as the new energy law passed last month requires US ethanol production to soar from about 9 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
"What we see are cars beginning to compete with people for world grain supplies," Brown said. "We could see a consumer revolt in this country."
Brown said that an SUV with a 25-gallon (95 litres) tank filling up with ethanol would use enough grain, about 560 pounds (254 kg), to feed the average person for one year.
However, the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group that lobbies for ethanol producers, says corn demand for ethanol doesn't have a big effect on retail food prices.
The group cites government data that shows labor costs account for 38 cents of every dollar spent on food, with packing, transportation, energy, advertising and profits accounting for 24 cents. Just 19 cents can be attributed to the cost of food inputs like grains and oilseeds, the group said. Still, rising ethanol demand helped cut world grain inventories last year to an all-time low of just 53 days of demand, compared with the 70 days of grain stocks many food experts say is normal. Brown said higher corn prices may bring back the backyard-type Victory Gardens last seen in World War II, with rural homeowners planting small plots of corn to cash in on growing ethanol use.
Story by Tom Doggett
Council Member
Posts: 1,749
January 17th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Quoting Pangloss
Pangloss no pun intended, but you are contradicting your self. On one hand you agree with Westmanguy and on the other hand you are making fun of him with the assertion him being on Ritalin, maybe you don't like Liberals as his avatar name is Liberal man. Whats up with that?
Westmanguy -
I think I agree with you but you write like your Ritalin prescription has long since expired. It is very difficult to understand your disjointed thoughts and half-finished ramblings.
Pangloss
I think I agree with you but you write like your Ritalin prescription has long since expired. It is very difficult to understand your disjointed thoughts and half-finished ramblings.
Pangloss
Council Member
Posts: 1,817
February 5th, 2008, 06:24 AM
Corn on the Mob
by Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared on American Spectator (Online) on January 30, 2008.
addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = 'cato_webmaster';
Indonesia is a land in turmoil, home to massive volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. On Monday, January 14, it experienced a brand new type of disturbance, the world's first food riot caused by another nation pandering to the global warming mob. Indonesians took to the streets, demanding that their government to do something about the price of soybeans, a dietary staple.
All over the world, food prices are on the rise. For most of the late 1990s and up until 2005, the price of beans on the Chicago Board of Trade had remained stable at about $5 a bushel. Since then, they have shot up over 150 percent, to around $13. Corn has doubled, to $5. Wheat prices have tripled.
Complete article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9126
Corn on the Mob
by Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared on American Spectator (Online) on January 30, 2008.
addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = 'cato_webmaster';
Indonesia is a land in turmoil, home to massive volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. On Monday, January 14, it experienced a brand new type of disturbance, the world's first food riot caused by another nation pandering to the global warming mob. Indonesians took to the streets, demanding that their government to do something about the price of soybeans, a dietary staple.
All over the world, food prices are on the rise. For most of the late 1990s and up until 2005, the price of beans on the Chicago Board of Trade had remained stable at about $5 a bushel. Since then, they have shot up over 150 percent, to around $13. Corn has doubled, to $5. Wheat prices have tripled.
Complete article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9126
Council Member
Posts: 1,817
February 5th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Quoting Zzarchov
The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.
So walter? You are saying you are a marxist then?
The government should collectivise farms perhaps? Screw the concept of a free market?
As the price of crops go up, so too will more people start producing crops, resulting in equilibrium.
The government should collectivise farms perhaps? Screw the concept of a free market?
As the price of crops go up, so too will more people start producing crops, resulting in equilibrium.
February 5th, 2008, 01:22 PM
Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.
Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.
Quoting Walter
You're deluded if you think left leaning organizations are big fans of government subsidized/mandated ethanol that helps Ag-business more than it helps small farmers. The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.
Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.
Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.
House Member
Posts: 3,381
February 5th, 2008, 09:35 PM
So if they reverse that, good for them.
But you're still defending marxist policies.
Quoting Walter
And Gasoline is only used because of leftist policies that don't take into account the true cost in an effort to have more government meddling into the economy. The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.
So if they reverse that, good for them.
But you're still defending marxist policies.
House Member
Posts: 4,564
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
February 5th, 2008, 10:45 PM
``You're deluded if you think left leaning organizations are big fans of government subsidized/mandated ethanol that helps Ag-business more than it helps small farmers.
Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.
Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.``
You obviously know what you are talking about unlike the right wingers on this forum.
The one thing that has always been a constant on this forum is the endless lies and ignorance of the right wingers.
For anyone who is smart enough and open minded enough, do yourself a favor by actually reading the truth about the corporate welfare receiving fat cats who lobby for and profit from ethanol:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/pubcit_ethanol.html
From wikipedia:
```According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.```
When will this forum's right wingers stop showing their ignorance???
``You're deluded if you think left leaning organizations are big fans of government subsidized/mandated ethanol that helps Ag-business more than it helps small farmers.
Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.
Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.``
You obviously know what you are talking about unlike the right wingers on this forum.
The one thing that has always been a constant on this forum is the endless lies and ignorance of the right wingers.
For anyone who is smart enough and open minded enough, do yourself a favor by actually reading the truth about the corporate welfare receiving fat cats who lobby for and profit from ethanol:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/pubcit_ethanol.html
From wikipedia:
```According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.```
When will this forum's right wingers stop showing their ignorance???
